tv FAA Reauthorization Act Implementation Hearing Part 1 CSPAN November 8, 2019 2:06pm-4:40pm EST
them. i haven't seen it recently but i'll give it to them. i had a call before this one with the president of ukraine. i understand they would like it, and i have no problem giving it to them. i have no problem. >> watch the c-span networks live next week as the house intelligence committee holds first public impeachment hearings. the committee led by chairman adam schiff will hear from three state department officials starting wednesday 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span3, top u.s. diplomat in ukraine william taylor and deputy assistant will testify. at 11:30 eastern on c-span2, form he were ambassador to krands marie yovanovitch will testify. find transcripts at c-span.org/impeachment. >> next, the house transportation subcommittee on aviation reviews faa
reauthorization act of 2018. in this portion of the hearing, committee members hear testimony from deputy faa administrator, among others. from september this runs about 3 1/2 hours. good morning. i want to thank the witnesses for joining the hearing on the implementation of faa authorization act of 2018. one year ago this committee wrote comprehensive bipartisan legislation to raise the bar on aviation safety, improve the flying experience for the flying public, better prepare and
diversify the aviation workforce and foster innovation in the usair space. today's hearing is a critical milestone in the subcommittee's oversight work to ensure the timely implementation of the law in accordance with our intent and to address new challenges. although the faa has made some progress on fulfilling the law's directives, ongoing implementation delays threaten the important work needed to advance u.s. aviation and aerospace and maintain our global leadership. our first panel of witnesses are dan elwell, faa's deputy administrator and joel szabat. acting under-secretary for policy at the department of transportation. mr. elwell and szabat, i expect your testimony will offer substantive updates on the administration's efforts to swiftly implement last year's law. i would note they're joined by staff from faa and d.o.t. and the staff will be available to help us answer any of our questions as well. witnesses on today's second
panel reflect a broad range of aviation stakeholders who are uniquely positioned to comment on what is working, what is not, and what congress can do to keep the faa and d.o.t. on track. i expect we'll cover a lot of ground today. so let me walk briefly through a few of my priorities. safety is the subcommittee's top committee. congress must ensure appropriate safety rules are in place to safely accommodate this demand. notably, the lack of modern rest requirements for flight attendants remains a critical aviation safety issue. allows airline to roster flight attendants for eight hours of rest. instead-of-modifying the '94 rule, provide at least ten hours of rest by november 4th of last year as directed in the bill, the faa just this week issued an
advanced notice of proposed rulemaking, soliciting comments on the cost and benefits of compliance with the mandate. i'm concerned that this action is yet another unnecessary delay. so mr. elwell, i'll expect you to shed more light on the faa's decisionmaking related to the issue. further, i look forward to safety of prm as some 15 airlines have implemented the mandate or are currently working towards compliance. the bill requires faa to issue guidance to air crews in responding to incidents involving smoke in cabins as well as a commission to study in cabin air quality. these directives are overdue, so i hope you can provide an update on how the faa plans to fulfill these mandates. congress as well must assure the faa officially integrated unmanned aircraft systems or uas into the national airspace system. congress must also ensure that integration is safe. this committee made the necessary reforms in last year's bill to ensure the agency could move forward on a remote identification rule. although, rulemaking was initiated more than one year ago, the publication date has
been repeatedly delayed. in july, i joined chair defazio and ranking member sam graves and garret graves raising questions about the delays in issuing the remote i.d. rule. but our questions remain unanswered. deputy administrator elwell and mr. szabat, i expect you'll provide us with those answers today. the faa in partnership with three uas sites has successfully completed test flights under phase one of the uas traffic management pilot program and look forward to hearing more about the lessons learned from that program to date. as the committee continues to support advances in u.s. aviation, the success of those efforts is possible with the investment in the next generation of engineers, pilots, mechanics and innovators. the authorization act includes a comprehensive workforce development title including my provision to create a new task force to encourage high school students to enroll in aviation manufacturing, maintenance, and
engineering apprenticeships. with global aviation becoming more competitive i'm concerned by the faa's lack of progress on this mandate as well as continued delays to establish a women in aviation advisory board and encourage women and young girls to pursue aviation careers. improving access to workforce training and diversifying the aviation workforce is an all-around win for employers, job seekers and the aviation and aerospace sectors. the faa reauthorization act includes numerous provisions to improve the air travel experience for more than the 900 million passengers who fly in the u.s. each year. years of championing the effort to improve accessibility of air travel for passengers with disabilities and pleased to see the reauthorization act included a robust title focused on improving the curb-to-curb experience for these passengers. however, the department's commitment to these goals has rightly been called into question as significant delays on rulemaking, several key mandates persist. moreover, the public is still waiting for the final action on rulemaking to ensure passengers with disabilities can access lavatories on single-aisle airplanes, an action i asked be
required in the 2016 faa extension. additionally, last year's act includes safety for the traveling public and airline employees by addressing sexual harassment and assault through open reporting and increased accountability. there's no doubt the faa and d.o.t. and this committee have our work cut out for us. timely implementation of the long-term reauthorization act will provide stability for the nation's aviation community, support the advancement of new technologies, improve american competitiveness and above all, ensure aviation safety. i want to thank, again, the witnesses for being here today. i look forward to the discussion. and for opening statement i turn to ranking member garret graves. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and thank you for holding this hearing. i want to thank all the witnesses for being here today. often, we pass laws and move on. we send out press releases. we have signing ceremonies. we move on. this law was signed in -- this bill was signed into law about a year ago.
almost a year ago. it includes over 400 pages of text, as undersecretary szabat includes in his testimony, it includes nearly 360 deliverables to the congress to this committee. 360. there's an awful lot of work that went into this legislation, and we need to make sure that the outcomes actually yield or represent that congressional intent. the process of signing a bill into law is just the beginning. the reality is that implementation is everything, as is the case in many circumstances. this bill lays out or addresses policy debates in any longstanding areas where there has been dispute or been differences or a lack of a decision. it truly lays the groundwork for the future of aviation and the future of aviation infrastructure. this legislation makes a lot of progress in terms of addressing
the future of aviation safety, how that applies not just to the aircraft but also to the information systems and the on-the-ground networks as well. this bill is a bipartisan bill. strong, strong support from republicans and democrats. strong vote in the house of representatives moving forward. but i want to say it again, all of this is for naught if the faa doesn't do what we directed them to do in the first place. mr. chairman, i'm glad we're holding this hearing today. i think that we need to ensure that we stay on top of this and stay on top of the implementation and carry out our oversight responsibilities properly. i understand what has been accomplished and what still needs to be done. it's important we look to the future and decide what we're going to do next. we fully understand the implementation of this legislation. i want to thank the witnesses on both panels for being here today and for your input. i'm interested in hearing how the faa implemented provisions related to the new technology such as unmanned aerial systems, aircraft systems. also want to learn the status of numerous safety process
streamlining and consumer protection efforts. thank you, again, mr. chairman, for holding today's hearing and yield back the balance of my time. >> thank you, mr. graves. i turn to the full committee, mr. defazio of oregon for five minutes. >> thanks, mr. chairman. welcome the witnesses here today. we did send a lot of mandates. the chair listed a number. i share his concerns over those. i'll list a few others that are at the top of my list. i understand it was a big workload, but if you prioritize and address the principle concerns, particularly those that relate to safety, you know, that will be good progress. flight attendant fatigue. 25 years. the faa realized fatigue is a real issue and that, you know, when you're dealing with safety-critical personnel, pilots, we've adopted rules, when it comes to flight attendants, safety-critical personnel, we haven't. the rules allow an airline to keep a flight attendant on duty for 14 hours then you get an
8-hour break. eight hours to get off the airplane, get out of the airport, get on the shuttle, go to the hotel. maybe make a phone call, take a shower, go to bed, get up and be back within eight hours. i don't know. maybe you get three, four hours' sleep if you're lucky. i thought we were very, very definitive and clear and it would not be necessary to go through a lengthy rulemaking and i'm hoping that we can expedite that in the near future. then we had the issue of cabin evacuations. when i first came to congress, i was aware of the manchester crash where people died piled up like cordwood trying to get out the over wing exit. it was a survivable crash. it took me five years in congress to get a rule that said we would take out and make space
to get at the over wing exits. two years later the industry came back with a fake study said, oh, no, that actually delays evacuations if you take those seats out. well, we pushed back on that. they didn't put them back in. now they're cramming in more and more and more seats closer and closer together. people are getting bigger and we haven't done a real safety evacuation drill in i think 20 years or 25 years. we're using computer simulations. i don't believe we can meet the standard anymore of 90 seconds which has been deemed to be critical. now, if the faa thinks you can have five minutes in a survivable crash in a fire, well, then, tell us that. but if you don't think that, then we have to find out whether or not the current rules
accommodate a 90-second evacuation. we had -- we have a real-life example which was the american airlines flight in chicago which was a wide body, so it wasn't one of the new really crammed in planes, and it took them well over 2 minutes and 21 seconds to evacuate the plane. the plane wasn't even full. so telling me that these new economy carriers that cram people in so they're sitting like this, i want to get the ceos here someday. i'm going to get some of those seats and going to put them in them and keep them here for four, five hours, see what they think about what they are doing. >> i won't be chairing that meeting. >> secondary cockpit barriers. bill lipinski, not dan, and i were on this issue before 9/11. the vulnerability of the flight decks. and united actually installed a few barriers in 757s. i was down there visiting their maintenance facility in san francisco once. i said, what do you call that? they said, we call those defazios because you're bugging us so much.
they didn't equip all the planes and we had a preventable tragedy, had we been able to prohibit access. yes, we've armed the doors and now we have flight attendants menacingly behind a cart. and it would be very hard for a person with strength and skill to vault over that cart, knock the flight attendant down, take out the pilot and get to the flight deck. that was really, really clear. now, the industry is very opposed. it's going to put a little more weight on the plane. and the manufacturers and the former chairmen tried to say, no, no, we didn't mean what the law said. we meant -- we meant new types. no, the law is clear. all newly manufactured airplanes will have these barriers. and, again, you know, this is being slow walked. i see that they, you know, asked for another delay. they're not releasing their recommendations. we got to get that out. drones took -- took me about
five years to rule the very, very powerful airplane lobby and chinese toy manufacturers to require that we could have remote i.d. they prohibited the faa from regulating these things. sooner or later, we're going to ingest a drone. what's going to happen? i asked the faa three years ago, what happens if one of those crappy little quadcopters goes into a turbine? they said, we don't know. i said, maybe we should find out. we still haven't had the live test. i don't know what the delay is. this is very serious. and if this -- you know, the commercial drone people are all with me on this. it's like, because if we have one accident because of some jerk illegally flying a toy drone, they're all going to get grounded, and it's going to be quite a mess. so we really, really need that rule and now i think we're not even going to see a proposed rule until december.
you know, i don't know. is it the model aircraft people, is it the chinese? who's keeping -- who's holding this up? then finally foreign repair stations. we just had an incident last week of what appears to be a terrorist action on domestic soil by a domestic employee. and, you know, i have for years, again, with bill lipinski, that's how long it's been, expressed concerns and with jerry costello about foreign repair stations. we did some visits. we can't do unannounced visits. the state department says then they can do unannounced visits here. who cares, we don't have anything to hide i hope. they don't do drug testing, as we require by law, don't do alcohol, drug, and they don't do background checks. now we're doing massive, massive amounts of maintenance overseas. this is an incredible
vulnerability. just like this guy tried to sabotage the plane there, what about somebody doing a de-check down in one of these foreign repair stations? that's a way to -- that's a way to take down a plane without having to get onboard and without having to access the flight deck. so these are safety critical, potentially life-threatening rules that we need. we need them as quickly as possible. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. now turn to ranking member graves for five minutes. >> thanks, chairman larsen, ranking member graves, for having this hearing. very glad the subcommittee is focusing on implementation faa reauthorization for 2018. very glad about that. this act is the longest reauthorization in more than two decades and its passage last october was very bipartisan. it was widely praised. but among other things, faa reauthorization, it gives the faa and industry much-needed stability. it provides steady funding for airport and infrastructure across the country and allows manufacturers to get products to
market on time, stay competitive and provides millions of good paying american jobs. it also streamlines the regulatory progress to encourage innovation in new technologies. i'm particularly proud in the reauthorization of the provisions that address issues important to the general aviation community such as supporting small and rural airports through the new supplemental grant program, increase in aircraft registration, times from three years to seven years. common sense changes in faa hangar use and policy related to the construction of an aircraft. tackling important general aviation safety issues such as marking towers. and faa fees for large aviation events such as air venture in oshkosh, wisconsin, and one in lakeland, florida. clarified faa policy relating to non-profits when it comes to accepting donations for living history flight experiences. promoted the streamlining and evaluation of regulations represented to certificates for pilots of experimental aircraft including the restoration of the
all makes and models certificate. supporting programs to develop the aviation workforce of the future. this is just to name a few. it's vitally important the workforce grant program training and studies directed by the law. it's very important that they're implemented in a timely manner. during the next seven days, general assembly of international aviation association is going to meet in montreal. i'm pleased faa leadership is going to be there with other regulators to discuss international standards. and i'm also pleased that one of those items to be discussed is international pilot training standards. and i understand the united states is going to present a white paper on automation and dependency in the cockpit. and i've said before, i've said this before, and i'm going to say it again because i don't think it can be repeated enough, that the pilot is the most important safety feature in any
cockpit, and his or her ability to fly the plane, when technology fails, is absolutely critical to safety. the growth of the commercial aviation industry around the world is so important to our global economy and it has numerous benefits, but that growth and rapid expansion, especially in developing nations, cannot come at the expense of safety and good training. i look forward to hearing from today's witnesses. i wish, and this isn't a criticism, mr. chairman, but i wish that we could hear from other segments of the aviation community, such as general aviation, the airlines, manufacturers, airports, safety inspectors, air traffic controllers on the g.a. community, so i hope today's hearing is just the first in a series on the implementation of the reauthorization law and, again, i want to thank our witnesses for being here today, and i yield back the balance of my time. thank you. >> thank you, mr. graves. so noted on your request. i want to welcome the witnesses
to our first panel. mr. dan elwell, deputy administrator of the faa and honorable joel zsabat, acting undersecretary of policy at the u.s. d.o.t. we look forward to your testimony today. without objection, our witnesses' full statements will be included in the record. since that is the case, the subcommittee requests limit your oral testimony to five minutes. mr. elwell, you are recognized. >> thank you, chairman larsen, chairman defazio, ranking member -- >> get close and speak up. >> thank you, chairman larsen, chairman defazio, ranking member graves and ranking member graves and members of the committee. thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the faa's ongoing work to implement the revisions of the faa authorization act of 2018. before we begin, i'd like to recognize our guests today, the family and friends of those who passed in the accidents in indonesia and ethiopia. it's in honor of their loved
ones we stay so intensely committed to improving safety. although the act authorized aviation programs for five years, the vast majority of the specific mandates require faa action within the first year. we remain committed to completing the work you have given us, and i am pleased to report we have made substantial progress on fulfilling the mandates. i'll discuss accomplishments in several key areas including aircraft certification, aviation safety, unmanned aircraft systems, and commercial space. the faa's approach to aircraft certification has evolved over time in order to adapt to an ever-changing industry with safety always paramount. continuous improvement is an integral component of the faa safety culture, and we're committed to learning from our experiences and using what we've learned to improve our process. the 2018 act furthers this work. as required in the
reauthorization, secretary chao this summer established a 22 member safety oversight and certification advisory committee to advise the department on policy-level topics related to certification including organization designation authority or oda. the reauthorization also require the faa to establish an oda office within the aviation safety organization to ensure consistency in oda oversight functions throughout the agency. we formally established the oda office in march. the 2018 act requires the faa to
reviewing these plans from airlines. in june we also directed the arac to evaluate a reauthorization requirement for airlines to install secondary cockpit barriers in new passenger aircraft. the faa is committed to implementing congress' mandate for this safety and security enhancement, and we're working with the arac to ensure it's done correctly. the faa is making good progress on several requirements ranging from contract towers and environmental concerns with firefighting agents to streamlining the passenger facility charge program. we're acutely aware of the need to continue balancing the interests of airports, airlines, and other aeronautical users, neighboring communities and traveling public among others.
the 2018 devoted considerable attention to the faa's continued work on the integration of uas into the national airspace system. key to this integration will be the ability to remotely identify a uas and link it to its operator, a capability that is fundamental to the safety and security of uas operations. a notice of proposed rulemaking on this subject is presently an executive branch clearance. recognizing the capabilities of commercial uas operations to carry cargo, congress required that the faa update existing regulations to allow for the practice. the faa and industry have been demonstrating increasingly complex operations in this area as part of the uas integration pilot program. we're using exemptions and waivers in the interim to meet the intent of the mandate while gaining the experience necessary to change the rules.
the commercial space industry is booming with an increasing number of launches and re-entries every year. congress recognizing the growing importance of this industry required that the faa stand up an office of space ports within the faa's office of commercial space transportation. i'm pleased to say the office of space ports is up and running and we're actively working with licensees and stakeholders. in conclusion, i want to assure you that we're fully committed to carrying out the reauthorization as quickly as possible, make sure we don't -- the substance behind each requirement in a rush to completion. be happy to answer your questions. thank you. >> thank you, mr. elwell. i now turn to joel szabat for five minutes. you're recognized. >> chairman larsen, chairman defazio, ranking member graves, the committee, thank you in congress for passing the 2018 faa reauthorization last fall
and for inviting me to testify on behalf of the department of transportation. i also thank the committee for allowing ms. blane workie to join us, assistant general counsel for the department's office of aviation enforcement and proceedings and thanks to provision in the reauthorization, our new aviation consumer advocate. the more than 550 sections of the act cover a wide range of aviation issues, many supporting secretary chao's and this committee's first priority of safety and the department's mission to ensure the safest and most efficient airspace in the world. despite the government shutdown last winter and our daily operational safety priorities within the department, we have made great progress on the safety, civil rights, and consumer protection provisions of the act. the reauthorization includes more than 360 deliverables for the department of transportation as ranking member graves noted, including those assigned to the faa.
we are not able to tackle every deliverable simultaneously or produce all the required reports and regulations within the first year. we remain committed to accomplishing all of the provisions of the reauthorization as quickly as practical. we have already responded to key reauthorization requirements by establishing new offices to deal with important issues such as office providing oversight of the organization designation of authorization and relating to consumer advocacy and support of our nation's space ports provisions of the law provide useful guidance and authority, and that innovative programs such as the integrated pilot program for unmanned aircraft systems, or uas, can continue and expand. on the safe transportation of lithium batteries, the faa and the pipeline hazardous materials safety administration coordinated to match our rules with international standards and allow lithium battery carriage exceptions for medical devices.
they have established groups to provide research, evaluation, and safety recommendations on the issue. the reauthorization bolster our efforts to maintain the world's safest airspace through the formation of several new advisory bodies. and mechanisms to ensure safety. in addition for calling for reviews of the certification process for the boeing 737 max, the secretary and administrator also created groups such as the safety oversight and certification advisory committee, to augment the work of multiple ongoing inquiries. within one month, d.o.t. reconstituted the aviation consumer protection advisory committee and established the national in-flight sexual misconduct task force. we are determined to address the problem of in-flight sexual misconduct to enable a safe flight in every sense of the word. to ensure more accessible air service, we will develop the airline passengers with disabilities bill of rights. we will review with input from stakeholders, and if necessary, revise regulations to ensure that passengers with
disabilities receive dignified, timely, and effective assistance from trained personnel. we'll also ensure regular training occurs for personnel charged with providing physical assistance to those passengers with disabilities. we have also issued notices and solicited applications for the air ambulance and patient advisory committee and air carrier act advisory committee. both committees are established now. we'll announce meeting dates after coordination with the committee members. we have taken steps to advance each of the 33 required rulemakings that deputy administrator elwell mentioned from the act. we expect to publish recommendations harmonizing the carriage of dangerous goods including lithium batteries and providing for remote identification of uas, a critical step in enable and advanced operations. other planned regulations will ensure we're being responsive to the flying public. the upcoming rulemaking agenda for the fall will include seven rules focused on improving customer experience with airlines. these proposed rules will
advance requirements for limiting cell phone usage on aircraft, ensure the public receives refunds for denied or unprovided service, and clarify the rights of passengers. while we have not yet completed all our obligations under the reauthorization, we have demonstrated our commitment to meeting them and we have the right principals in place to accomplish the work. on behalf of the secretary, i commit to continue our work to achieve a safe, accessible vision for aviation. i'm happy to join the deputy administrator dan elwell and our staff to answer any further questions you may have. >> thank you. i recognize myself for five minutes and i think the committee members appreciate both of you saying that faa and d.o.t. remain committed to completing the mandates that we put into the bill. i also think i convey the frustration that you haven't moved fast enough. for instance, on the ten-hour
rest rule, we were very specific about what we wanted to see and how we wanted to see it and when we wanted to see it. i guess we thought that we didn't leave a lot of ambiguity in the law of what we wanted, here we are in september still waiting on ten-hour rest rule. can either of you address what has been the delay specifically to implementing ten-hour rest? >> yes, chairman larsen, thank you for that question. i'll start -- we will implement that rule and that provision consistent with the law, and you, i believe, mentioned it or chairman defazio, i think you mentioned that we are in the process of processing the fatigue risk management plans. there are 48 airlines in the country that have flight attendants. we've received 28 fatigue risk management plans to date. ten have been approved.
and these are plans that are designed to meet the requirement. and you -- it was not ambiguous language, sir, but what we weren't cleared from doing is normal administration procedures act requirements. we have to notice in comment for rule like this, have to do a cost analysis and that entails rulemaking. so as we said, it has been dropped, yesterday, i believe. sir, you and chairman defazio, we commit that those comments that come from the anprm will inform and actually should -- my hope is -- should accelerate the eventual passage of the rule because the writing of the nprm will be informed by those
initial comments, and i think lead to a better written rule and hopefully expedition. we have every intention of getting that done, sir. >> i'm sure others will have follow-up questions on that. i want to ask mr. szabat what your timeline is for establishing the disabilities -- the bill of rights for travelers with disabilities. >> thank you, mr. chairman, for the question. as i mentioned in my testimony, we are committed to fulfilling the requirements of establishing a passengers with disabilities bill of rights. we have established the air carrier access act advisory committee and one of our very first steps, the first charges to that committee, is for them to take a look at the requirements that are set in statute for developing such a bill of rights and to make recommendations back to us. so if you will, the first step is we've established the
committee to look at this. they will make recommendations back to us. then our obligation is to look at those recommendations and implement them as quickly as possible for the passenger bill of rights. >> on the next panel, we'll have the president of the paralyzed veterans of america, so just prepping the pva to help us give us some guidance on how we can give you guidance to move forward more quickly. also, with regards to workforce -- the workforce development title, i assume that's under your jurisdiction as well, mr. szabat? yeah. so the law directed faa to establish a women in aviation advisory board to get moving on youth access to american jobs and aviation task force. it does not seem that the d.o.t. has moved forward an those aspects of workforce development. do you have ideas for timelines on those? >> thank you, again, for the question, mr. chairman. as with you, the importance of
first developing a strong workforce, recognizing the shortfalls in the workforce, and one of the key possible ways to address that and just good on its own merits is bringing more women into the aviation workforce are high priorities for us. as it happens, within the last few days the paperwork for the women in aviation task force crossed my desk. we can expect to see an announcement that that task force has been formed within days, not weeks. >> how many more desks does it have to cross, then, for it to become a reality? >> in this case, i think it's crossed the last desk, but until it's announced, i don't want to make any commitments except to say it will be out within days, not weeks. >> all right. mr. elwell, follow-up on anything there? >> yes, sir. workforce is a very big priority to us as it is to the department. we are working a pace on 631 and the workforce grants.
there's some technical difficulties on getting that processed and getting it forward. we also have a huge emphasis on s.t.e.m., aviation and space education initiatives. we've increased our employee engagement with young people by 200% in the past year and that's a program voluntarily faa folks reach out to young people for getting into this industry. it's a -- it's a difficult challenge because s.t.e.m., there's a shortage of s.t.e.m. graduates across all sectors, but, so we're competing with other sectors on a shortage of these graduates, but we're trying to get them early. we're talking to them in elementary school. >> so i'll have my staff follow-up with you rather than ask a question about how we can help you get through these technical difficulties on the
grants and conclude and recognize ranking member graves of louisiana for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. elwell, you and i have discussed a number of occasions my frustration with scenarios where congress implements a law and have an agency to come back and not follow it or invent their own interpretation it wasn't consistent with congressional intent. and when deadlines are in the law, those deadlines aren't adhered to, it does cause a great bit of frustration now. i know there was some anomalies with the faa bill in that the conference negotiations between the house and the senate were very quick. i know that there was some feedback expressed by the agency about the inability to meet certain deadlines without some expedited procedures including potentially waiving the apa in some scenarios but i do want to
re-emphasize the deadlines are important. we want to make sure we continue to work together to ensure we comply with many of these, including as the chairman mentioned, the flight attendant rule, although i know, as i recall, i'm sure we can get an update later, i believe a number of the contracts that have been implemented between airlines and the flight attendants do include the ten hours. you mentioned in your testimony remote i.d. can you give a bit more verbose update on remote i.d. and what the administration can do to expedite implementation? i think that this is one of the key areas as you and i've discussed in the past about the evolution of this technology, all the, i think, advances that it potentially brings to different sectors including
safety disaster response and many, many others. could you talk a little bit about efforts to expedite? >> yes, mr. graves. thank you for the question. and i was remiss earlier when i started to not introduce the lady to my right, ms. lirio liu, the resident expert at the faa on all things rule making. she's the acting deputy of the office of safety. i expect i will be leaning to her a few times during this hearing today particularly on this, perhaps, lirio can weigh in. first, let me say, sir, i share your frustration. i hate to miss deadlines, but i won't, and as the agency, we won't make a deadline and compromise, of course, safety. you wouldn't want us to. we're not going to do it. not all deadlines are missed because -- because of that, but you're right, in this case, there's just a volume of first-year requirements that in light of other things going on in the past year, that deadline slipped.
on the remote i.d., i, too, share your points that it is the foundational rule upon which everything else we do with uas is going to flow. and we need -- we need to get it out. we had a lot of issues, a lot of technical issues, with it at the beginning. a lot of it was interagency, quite frankly. law enforcement requirements and issues and title 18 requirements and the like. and we are very appreciative of chairman defazio changing the provision on recreational modelers. however, that caused us to basically start almost from scratch on writing the provisions. so there's been a number of things but nevertheless, the rule is moving. we're going to get it done, and i would turn to miss lou if there's anything on the actual technical writing side of it
that you wanted to add. >> thank you. i have to get close. yes, on the remote i.d., it has been one of the priorities for the organization for a long period of time and i think you heard of that at the faa in the testimonies here this it's been the lynchpin for integrating the u.s. in the future. the rule never stopped from the time we started to work on it and i think as mr. o indicated we had drafted a rule and was very close to finalizing it, but it had a lot of carve outs as it relates to the section 336 of the previous authorization that accounted for recreational users. because of that limitation, we had to consideration how we would do identification with various scenarios. so that was one reason why. when we got the provision to include them which we consider was quite a benefit and we had to go back to rewrite the rule and we'd end up with a regulatory framework in the end.
the rule currently is at the office of information and regulatory affairs at omb. we expect that we'll be expediting that review, as well because they recognized the significance. we've done an in brief with them friday as well as the technical officer with the united states office of management and budget. >> i'm sorry. could you move the microphone closer? i'm having trouble hearing. it's me, it's not you. >> i probably have the same. we had an in brief with the rule. it is as mr. oh indicated, it is a technical rule because it will set the basis for how we will do what we do equivalently for manned aircraft is the edsb and it will also set the framework for utm in the future which is the uas traffic management system, and i think what's important is even if the rule is not in place, what we're trying to do through a number of other aspects is to increase the compliance and expedite that. i think another thing that's important is this is going to be
a unique rule. and i think it's pretty innovative on our part because it will be a partnership similar to what we do with the notification right now to get authorization to fly think tha that we actually have a good framework in place. there was an rif request for information that outlined provisions so the remote i.d. standards can be put out and start to design towards that. i feel even though there's a delay in the rulemaking, there's very good progress being made. >> thank you very much. mr. elwell, i'm going to submit questions regarding section 506, 509. also mr. szabat i want to learn more about the status of emotional support animals. so submitting some questions on that as well. >> before i recognize mr. fazio, the next three on the, after mr.
fazio, next three on the republican will be webster, mitchell and gallagher and next three will be lipinski, davids and cohen. a heads up for folks. chairman fazio, five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. elwell, can you assure me that -- congress said ten minute break. that's not going to change. if we're that explicit, even if airlines complain it will cost them a bunch of money or whatever you can reduce that, is that correct, that's a statute? >> sir, i can commit that under the confines of the reviews that it has to go through and other agencies that have to weigh in, that that is the intent to meet your rule and to -- >> i had a lengthy hearing yesterday where the law isn't the law. i want to make sure in this case
the law is the law. it says ten hour. it's very explicit. here's the other side. i understand, you know, and perhaps in the future when we have to do these sorts of thing we'll anticipate and obviate the rulemaking process. but the air carers, part 121 were supposed to submit fatigue risk management plan no later than 90 days. now they don't have to go through a rulemaking, they just have to send you a plan. what's the hold up? you say only 11 completed this. >> sir, we have 28 submitted. and as far as their meeting that 90 days, we are talking to them along the way. >> is there a possibility of fining them if they are not in compliance with that? >> i have to get back to you on the enforcement side of it. i don't have it in front of me. >> we're pretty explicit.
it shouldn't take more than 90 days. united had theirs in at the first of january. i don't want this to -- some low common denominator out there dragging this out unnecessarily. then on the secondary barriers, we ask that an or be issued essentially it would be like a corrective action having to do with something like the structure of the plane or whatever, an order. but now we're going to go through a rulemaking or an advisory committee on secondary barriers. what would happen if you just ordered the airlines to do it? >> mr. chairman even an order would require rulemaking unless it was an emergency order -- >> well could it be an emergency word. we don't want another 9/11. >> sir, that process still
requires rulemaking. making changes to the interior of 121 aircraft is an stc, supplementary type certificate. that requires approval from the faa. the faa has to provide for all the carriers the standards and performance requirements for the barrier which again would normally entail rulemaking and we have to think about these barriers have to think about everything from a 50 seat regional jet to a twin aisle international carrier, so there are serious things to consider both on safety, on the manufacture of these doors. >> that's good. i get that. but you do agree with what the law says, there's no question that the former chairman was incorrect in saying we meant new
types, we said all newly manufactured aircraft. >> yes, sir. >> okay. that's good. and then, you know, the uas rule at omb, i think missliu can answer. this is a critical rule. how will they calculate their cost benefit when we haven't done a test yet on addressing a drone, we don't know if it will cause uncontained failure or take the plane down. what are they using? what are the costs involved? there are no costs to the government. >> i don't think we can address for an aircraft of the uas but the intent is to allow for us to detect before would you have that encounter. >> right. >> so there's benefits because of what we have seen already and dispenses resources to do the
tracking for uas. i think it's more the benefit that we can find in allowing the industry to operate in a safer manner than what we have been using in some cases manned aircraft. >> i don't know what omb -- for instance we had a bad fire summer, i had a whole fleet of planes and helicopter down because some jerk was taking pictures of the fire and there was a drone in the restricted air space. i don't know how someone couldn't find a benefit. there's no down side to this. >> actually those are accounted for in the cost benefit analysis. >> okay. thank you. my time has expired. >> i recognize mr. webster for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i would like to discuss an issue concerning the registration of an aircraft where constituent
line has gone through a nightmare experience in trying to get his aircraft, which he purchased from the u.s. marshal's auction and it was owned by a member of the drug cartel in mexico. so he tried to get it registered here, faa told him it's still registered in mexico, you have to fix that. he tried to get that done. matter of fact, you aided in him in trying to do that but the mexican authorities basically answered politely your request is warmly received but they've done nothing and there is no dispute over ownership or anything like that. so the mexican authorities, i think, are operating in bad faith. i mean he hired a lawyer in mexico. they told him that giving $150,000 and we'll get your plane registered for you, which is a little steep. it's plain and simple extortion.
i don't know, whatever you want to call it. the particular case kind of shed lights on a going flaw in u.s. policy because it's questioning the sovereignty of this country. in a sense there's clearly a negative impact on citizens if a foreign government could stop a united states or citizen here of getting an aircraft registered. like a hostage. so, anyway, i guess my question is what -- what's the next step if the mexican government continues to refuse to give him or to deregister the plane in mexico? >> sir, i have been apprised of this situation and it's sort avenue area for me and my understanding is that there are international agreements that
don't permit us to register an aircraft that has a foreign registry and in the past this has been sort of a very quick thing done between state departments and the agreement is met because our state department calls their state department and the government in question says yes we release the registration, go ahead. for some reason in this case as you rightly describe government of mexico is not doing what they normally do. so we are looking into it. we're talking to doj. we're talking to state department. and the intent is to get this resolved, sir. >> so, you're committed to go to the highest level with the mexican authorities to try to get this squared away? >> yes, sir. we'll do everything we can under the current agreements and law, and to get the to the bottom of this so your constituent can register the airplane. >> mr. chairman, i have -- i
would like unanimous consents for the insertion of a letter that goes to the issue, several have talked about, and that's the unmanned vehicle. so if i could do that, that would being a great. >> without objection. >> i also have sort of an issue there too, you brought it up as others did. i'm in a district where there are parks, theme parks, bunches of them, big ones. worlds in some cases. so the there's real concern about that in that area too and how they are going to be able to proceed, especially even in some of the smaller parks i'm more concerned how they are going to proceed in getting some sort of ability to stop uas activity in proximity to their parks. i just throw that in to say i'm
in on whatever we can do to speed that up. i know twice it was in one of our re-authorization bills and, he anyway, it would be good to get on it. yield back. >> thank you. mr. lipinski is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to talk about the delays in rulemaking. the reason it's important is we have to be concerned about delays because we're talk first and foremost safety and i know chairman defazio talked about the second cockpit barrier, ten minute rest period and delays in rulemaking is delay in safety. also quality of life issues we're talking about here both for people who fly and those who live around airports and i'll have a question about that. you also have delays in
technology which hurt the -- they hurt the united states and the remote i.d. rule has to do with safety first and foremost but also has to do with the advancement of uas and that is, impacts -- impacts jobs in this country. we want to be a leader in innovation in all areas. i want to start out asking on the technology side, i includeed a provision in the faa, re-authorization section 192 for r and d demonstration projects with zero emission technology. and i wanted to ask what the faa has been doing to implement this program? this is an advance technology zero emissions, obviously.
important looking at the protecting the environment. and is there anything that mr. elwell, you can tell me about this? >> mr. lipinski, i'm not immediately familiar with the section that you're asking about. i will certainly get back to you, if that's okay with a detailed response. i'll tell you that innovation is a major priority and for secretary chow, for the administration and us. one initiative we're trying to effect is create an office of innovation whose charge would be to take in new technologies and assimilate them into our culture quicker than we currently do. technology today moves as we all
know so much faster than it did a few decades ago and the faa and aviation were slow to begin with, as you point out because of our safety concerns. anything we can do to, on the r and d side or the operational testing side, anything we can do to accelerate innovation especially as fast as it's moving i'm all for that, sir. >> i look forward to hearing about section 192 and what you're doing and also what you're talking about in terms of innovation and what we can do to be helpful on that. i want to move on to a quality of life issue at midway airport in my district, whichever one loves midway airport for the economic engine that it is but everyone hates the noise, obviously. and this is a one square mile airport that has houses on all four sides. so section 188 required to report on day/night average
sound levels dnl. so when can we expect the report to be completed on that? >> sir, the section asking for a report on dnl -- i'm not sure i can give you a date on the completion of that report. i have to get back to you on that. >> i was wondering if there's, you know, any expectation that it's currently at 65 decibels, if it could be maybe lowered after this comes out, the report comes out? >> sir, actually we're going to get that dnl report out before the end of the year. >> okay. thank you. it's been an issue with next gen
and new technology. there has been increases in noise levels, in certain areas, around airports and this is something that i would like to talk more with you about and we need to continue to work because this has been a major issue for many people who live not just around midway airport, my district o'hare just outside my district and across the country. so thank you. i yield back. >> i recognize mr. mitchell from michigan for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chair. the faa re-authorization act contained as we already discussed numerous hand dates and expectations for the faa. implementation of changes. one of the biggest challenges we had in re-authorization is next g each n. how it should be structured and moving forward. air traffic control system uses
antiquated equipment and needs improvement. over the past years we spent billions of dollars, countless hours. we recently had an update on next gen which is really helpful. we don't want to rehash the details how we got here but i want to talk about one provision. in the bill we included section 547, enhanced air traffic services provision. the amendment to describe briefly required creation of pilot program to demonstrate the full promise of next gen technologies. designates certain airports and demonstrates the benefits and cost savings as a result of that and safety improvements. report to come back to congress. there was a time frame of 90 days. we talked a little bit before the hearing. i want to give an update. we all would like to have an update on that pilot program. >> thank you for that question, mr. mitchell. and this is a project that we
have a lot of energy behind, and three airports to do enhanced air traffic system testing. i believe it's for three hour blocks, continuous three hour blocks in the day. and the next gen advisory committee has been tasked and that's the committee of all the stakeholders invested in next gen to give us their recommendations and they promise us the airports recommend by spring of 2020 and then do a two year pilot program on the enhanced air traffic services from '21 to '23. >> no further progress until spring of 2020? >> yes. 2020 is when we'll have the airports named. >> will it be three airports or five? we require three. you talk maybe more. >> it's currently three. but, sir, i will take that back and look at the possibility of
increasing that because i think it's a very valid and worthwhile program to be able to look at what full equipage, what will it do to efficiency at any airport. >> i think in your report i would ask not just efficiency but impact on safety because of your ability to route aircraft and separations are far more accurately using that type of system. so that report would be helpful and important as we move forward. so i encourage implementation of it as timely as we can. let me change gears a little bit. i share chairman defazio's concerns about evacuation. re-authorization contained a couple of mandates that are important. establishing minimum feet for passenger seats. i'm not a dainty guy. i look around the room. a lot of not so dainty people.
seat size, dimensions between seats, exits, i'm not sure that the models that are being used to be honest with you reflect current air travellers. certainly not in the united states or north america. at 6'2" and 240 pounds or so, you know, where we at in terms of moving forward. we evaluated the evacuation procedures and time. that can become critical. can you advise how we move forward on that. besides whether i cram my back side in a seat getting out would be a useful thing. can you update us? >> yes, sir. thank you for that question, mr. mitchell. we are looking at the language. we're thankful that mr. cohen's provision asked us to look at seat size and seat pitch and seat dimensions and obviously in the construct of safety which is what our mandate is.
we are going to perform testing in this, for this section including human testing and later this year we're going to establish the necessary seat pitch, width, length based on safety which would be the basis for any rulemaking if we -- >> can i stop you he's going to hit the gavel. do you have a time frame when you'll do that testing and when we'll gate feedback. >> larry, do you have a timing on it? >> pardon me. i one it's supposed to occur before tends of the year. we set up the aviation rulemaking advisory committee as well. we'll be able to determine the appropriate seat size rule. >> we have 12 days of testing planned in move to with 720 live bodies and collection of 3,000 data points. >> he likes that gavel. i yield back, sir. >> you were doing so well, mr.
mitchell. mr. cohen, for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chair. mr. mitchell i precious your questioning, and i rue your absence from the congress because you've been such a good member but i understand your logic and i commend you on it. in the last congress we passed the faa re-authorization act and i sponsored as director elwell has mentioned along with another representative the seat act that you provide with us within a year for safety purposes pitch, width, the whole rigamarole of seats. yet we don't have it. tests in the past have been done with computers. and i think they are computers -- i'm not totally incorrect, i think they were provided by the airlines, or the
manufacturer. and they were simulations provided by them. we don't need to have another crisis like we had with the boeing airplane. that we have a crash and we come back and we have to ask the faa, people couldn't get out of the plane in 90 seconds. why did you not comply with the seat act? so, tell me again why this hasn't been accomplished? we're almost a year. and if it's going to be human conditions to where you got people, mr. mitchell's size, mr. defazio's size, mr. trump's size, all in coach class trying to get out of a plane in 90 seconds. are you going to have those people? >> sir, we are -- we're looking at it. obviously, as chairman defazio
said americans are getting bigger. and so seat size is important. but got to be looked at in terms of safety. to answer chairman defazio's question the most recent live, full air evacuation testing was actually done 2018, not 20 years ago, it was airbus 350. we've done it. and despite what -- >> do you this test with the airbus -- was that done here or in europe? >> it was done in europe. >> why has not the faa done it in america with americans? we're widening out more than europeans. they are doing vegan free and mult multi-grain and eating fruit. we aren't. >> we did the 777 the most recent times where we did life testing. we're line up to do 12 days of evacuation testing in november
with 720 people, we'll collect 3,000 data points but one thing i want to allay your concerns a little bit. in the most recent examples of full whole loss accidents, 100% evacuation. >> in 90 seconds. >> asiana -- >> were they done in 90 seconds. >> i can get back to you if it happened within 90 seconds. but survivability today is much, much better due to a lot of great work that we do at the tech center in new jersey and great improvements in flamability and survivability. we're going to do live testing and get you and answer on the seat pitch as it pertains to safety, sir. >> and where are you going to get these people? you're not going to slim fast,
are you? >> sir, we're going to try to use a good demographic sampling and maybe invite you. >> would be good to invite me because i got a bad leg and you got people in this country who are larger but also people with disabilities that fly and you need the to have a representative sampling. you got children and whatever. >> sir, we do incorporate all of those things, lap children. animals. we incorporate all of that and we will in the testing. and i don't know, if there's anything we missed in how we do that testing. >> i can reflect back on that. when we simulate the recertification, it will be in a dark environment. participants won't know which ones are blocked. demographics is for everyone so there's no specific demographic sought for.
it will be dark in the cabin. they try to simulate the worst case scenario. >> invite me. i would like to observe. if you pick democrats you'll get a good representation of america. >> i'm much less exciting, dare i say, dainty questions to offer. but northeast wisconsin technical college which is located in green bay, wisconsin is concerned about the implementation of section 631, a program known as the community and technical college centers of excellence in small unmanned aircraft systems technology training. this program was intended to help community colleges to extend their role in education and training for small drone technology. seems like a good idea. but northeast technical college reports there hasn't been much progress made to implement this program even though it was eat
created with a deadline 180 days after the enactment which should have been april 5th, 2019, if my math is correct. so i would ask what is the current status of establishing a process to designate community colleges uas centers of excellence? >> thank you for that question, mr. gallagher. we did briefly mention 631 a little bit earlier. one of the issues is that the way this provision was presented, it was with centers of excellence which are not grant programs, not grant recipient programs. so we're working through that and i told chair marc anthony larson we'll work through the wording issues so that we can get this done. i'm a huge proponent. i was recently up at vaughn college which is a cti college for controllers. it had a wonderful conversation with a student, a young lady who is a dynamo aviation enthusiast
and will graduate in the spring with $86,000 in debt. if we excite young people into this profession for government service and industry we have to get a handle on this and get them train. i agree with you 100%. section 632 which is related, we hope to have that done by the end of the year and certainly help community colleges specialize. so we understand the need, sir, and i hate to talk about technicalities but we'll work through them. >> well, we often find ourselves dealing with technicalities. can you give us a flavor and i don't know which one of you two would address. what the consultation that is taking place between faa, department of transportation, education and labor all the other interagency players in this on 631? perhaps more broadly do you feel there is interagency buy in to
the program? >> i'm not aware of interagency discussion on 7631. i'm not sure it's required, if it's a program we can implement and do. i'm just advised from the language is a problem and i certainly will get to interagency discussion if we have to do it and use it. i know that, you know, last year around this time we had a workforce summit at national airport where we did have all -- we had the air force secretary, we had secretary chou, department of labor, department of education, all coming together to come up with solutions on these workforce issues. so it's a high priority of ours and we will get back to you on the work and if there's anything that you can do we'll certainly
won't be shy to ask how you can help. >> final question, so for these colleges, technical colleges, you know, college like northeast wisconsin technical college who want to be forward leaning, they want to take full advantage of 631, i mean what advice would you have for them right now? >> well, first of all, i think getting the cti accreditation, two year programs will suffice for that. get recognized as a preferential, controllers do preferential hiring. it's a separate pool. that's an incentive unto itself. then the extent to which a college can be eligible for assistance, federal assistance. that's the issue that we need to get back to you on. >> i appreciate that. we have an opportunity here.
there's a lot of bipartisan goodwill around the idea of elevating our technical, our vocational schools and this would seem to be a growth industry and an industry that can attract the attention of a lot of millennials and whatever we're calling the generation that's younger than millennials these days. appreciate it. >> thank you very much, mr. gallagher. before i go to representative craig just in order we have on the republican side, bolderson, rowser and perry and then our side. get people prepared. recognize representative craig for five minute. >> it's absolutely clear that our communities who are near our airports have benefitted from the employment opportunities and convenient access to domestic and international travel. but those who live around those major airports also live with the burden of office ten overwhelming overhead noise, especially as the number of flights around the country
continues to increase and their flight paths become more streamlined and precise. where i live in egan, minnesota we're severely impacted by aviation noise, and the city recently has taken the opportunity to come up with some measures to address and mitigate these, i which i applaud. i wasn't in the office for the passage of the 2018 faa re-authorization, i'm encouraged by many of the provisions that address these voiced concerns and problems nationwide. mr. elwell, and mr. szabat, i would like to ask you a few questions on the status and intended outcomes of a few of those provisions if you don't mind. section 189 instructs the faa to conduct a study on potential health and economic impact of over flight noise. you formally entered into a partnership for this research, which is a great first step. can you tell me a little bit more about the parameters of this study and how you're
weighing the effects of noise on children and families like our city in egan? >> thank you for that question, miss craig. we have entered into an agreement with m.i.t. and boston university on the commencement of that study and i can get back to you on the parameters and what the agreed parts of that study are with m.i.t. and boston university. >> mr. szabat, anything to add to that? >> madam secretary, shank you for the question but no. >> thank you. so section 175 is titled addressing community noise concerns and effectively compels the faa administrator to shift flight takeoff and landing patterns if an airport operate orand community jointly make a reasonable and safe request to do so. the city of egan is currently urging this consideration with
the metropolitan airports commission, as a member of congress how can i be supportive of my constituents during this process, hat more can my constituents do to raise their voices on issue related to noise concerns? mr. elwell? >> well, community engagement is critically important. we understand that. we are refining and improving our community engagement. we have naming noise ombudsman at our region offices. they will report directly to the regional administrators. in your case it's the great lakes. and community engagement, cross agency engagement, led by the regional administrators and ombudsman is critically
important. it's important to engage, listen and make adjustments as necessary and quite a few communities around the country where we're doing that. i would say just a couple of data points on noise that i found intriguing. in 1970 there were 200 million passenger plane and 7 million people subjected to significant noise. today we carry 900 million and 400,000 people are subjected to noise above 65 dnl. we acknowledge this is, for your constituents and many others, a critical issue, and we're engaging it. but i'll tell you that both in engine design, aircraft design, procedural design, huge advances
being made in getting aviation quieter but there's more we can do and we're anxious to engage with the communities and all the stakeholders to see how we can make the air quieter above your constituents. >> thank you so much. i appreciate the thoughtful answer you gave and i hope you will also be given the opportunity to review the very thoughtful recommendation from the stiff egan. thank you so much. mr. chairman, i yield back my time. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, panelists for being here this morning. mr. elwell, i'll direct my first question to you and this is to follow up what mr. gallagher was referring to with workforce development that's something that's very important. but what is the faa doing to improve the aviation workforce pipeline? i mean for the pilots, i know
there's an extreme shortage for pilots, projected there will be 790,000 pilots short by 2037. what your all doing for that pipeline? >> thank you for that question. as i referenced the workforce summit, i think in the day long summit we had maybe five different panels that cover the gamut. we do anticipate a pilot shortage in the coming decade. but it's not just pilots, it's all of the technical fields in our sector. it's not a mandate of the faa to ensure a large pilot population. but we do believe that a shrinking pilot demographic is not good for the system and ultimately probably not good for safety. so what we're doing is we're engaging. we have a workforce task group
within the faa, engaging many different organizations, women invasion, for instance. the airline own earns pilots association, all of the sort of alphabet groups that represent interests in our sector, air force junior rotc came to the faa and said we're trying to do a program where we take kids after their sophomore year in high school, sends them to a university, i think auburn is one of them that they contracted with. we take a kid coming out of tenth grade that doesn't know what an airplane look like and by the end of the summer they have their private pilot's license but in the faa you have the restriction of 17 years old to get a private pilot's license can you get it back to 16 to get those kids before they commit to another profession. these are the kind of engagements we want to have. it was mentioned already women
invasion. women are woefully underrepresented in our sector and i think that's a huge demographic and population that we should be creating interest for, for this industry. we have an mou with the air force to look at their pilot training research. they are making, doing some very, very interesting things in pilot training that we think can be mirrored in the civil sector. so this is a huge initiative. we're anxious for any and all ideas and help that we can get because we know that this committee is passionate about this as we are, and we're ready, willing and able to engage on how we can improve the workforce, strength of the workforce. >> congressman, if i can tag on for a minute in support of mr.
elwe elwell's comment. this matters to the department as well as the federal aviation administration. secretary chou kicked off the flyers initiative. we're working with the air force to make sure transition for pilots for other qualified aviation personnel to move to the civilian sector. dan has mentioned women invasion. as part of that the department is looking to apec, asian/pacific economic council looking for women invasion prioritization within all of the countries that border the pacific. >> sorry. thank you. i'll follow up and both of you may answer this response or question also. do you believe the faa currently has the necessary resources to take on the pilot shortcomings? you said reaching out to us. but my office would love to communicate with you all of giving you leads or some way of
not necessarily leads but how we can make it so you can attract young adults and whether that's -- i have a very good friends of mine and his son is finishing his private pilot's license right now and you're correct, he's 17 years old. probably could have started flying earlier than that. not much. but we would love to work with you and find ways to change that. thank you both very much for your response. i yield back, mr. chairman. >> thank you. i recognize vice chair of the subcommittee, representative davids of kansas. >> thank you, chairman, ranking member and thank to you the witnesses for coming here today. i appreciate your time and your expertise. i wasn't here when we passed the re-authorization previously so i'm hoping for some insight. my first question is for deputy
administrator elwell who i know you've been here before. welcome back in your new role. there's been a troubling number of media reports about passengers and crews being, falling ill or becoming sick because of cabin fumes and air quality in the cabins, and i'm hoping to hear from you briefly about how the fumes and smoke might even make it into the plane for folks who don't already know that. >> thank you for that question, miss davids. we are working towards completing all the requirements that's included, engaging -- included engaging with stakeholders own useful educational materials. this is part of what was in the bill. useful education materials, developing reporting guidance for carriers, reminding carriers to use the their sms, their
safety management system. that's what sms is for to identify issues and to share with crew, their crew members and technicians and engaging. we are engaging in the research of bleed air. you know, when it comes to cabin air issues, it often comes down to the bleed air, what's coming in the cabin to pressurize the cabin from the outside. and the refresh rate. the recirculation rate. so we are looking into it in all the areas that the bill mandated. and if it's okay, i would like to check with larry to see if you can expound on that. >> that would being a great. >> it is part of certification.
it's under research we have the appropriate working groups starting the process and using the data as indicated. >> and actually that's a great point to hit a follow upquestion i had. i know there were a number of requirements in the re-authorization and commissioning a study was one of those, one of those requirements. i want seems as though that's something that's been delayed. i'm curious if you can give a progress update on what the -- what kind of research you've been able to do and if i have the language correct it says potential health effects of the contaminants from bleed air which you mentioned and, yeah, any other updates you might have around that. >> yes, ma'am. we have begun, begun that process, begun that research and
testing. and i remember reading through it, but i will have to get back to you on the details of that research, but -- wait. i'm getting a note. we're actually meeting next week with the stakeholders and the participants and we'll get back to you, ma'am, on exactly what we're doing in that area. >> that would being a great. of course, i'm very concerned about passengers and i'm very concerned about all the folks who make their livelihood spending time on planes. thank you for your time and i yield back. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank each of you for being here this morning. as you know my home state of north carolina is one of the nonpar the at thecy pants in the
faa-uas integration pilot program and their to discuss on routine drone delivery of medical packages and so far there have been more than 1,200 operations on the hospital campus there in raleigh. this is the first routine drone medical package deliver compensation in our country and a significant step forward for faster and easier delivery between medical facilities. can you speak to how the data gathered from this pilot program is helping the faa find solutions to restraints on integration within the current regulatory framework such as restrictions on flying beyond visual line of sight or flight over people? how are these efforts coming along? >> well thank you for that question. the uas implementation integration pilot program specific to your district has been a huge success. as you mentioned. the blood delivery on campus,
back and forth has greatly expedited the delivery of samples which, of course, in turn gets results quicker for patients. i understand, i'm told that -- i think u.p.s. will try to operationalize that much as google wing as tried their project in blacksburg, virginia to do deliveries. what the itpp has done the project in north carolina and virginia and at seven other pilot projects around the country has given us the the data we need to start certifying these operations for eventual integration. google wing, for instance, went through a part 135 certification and that was unprecedented. hadn't been done before. we did it for that drone operation to prove we can use our regulatory structure that exists today and modify it for uas operations. we have about a year, a little
more than a year left in the study and pilot program for the nine different projects. we'll take the lessons learned and there are many. and that tied to rules like remote i.d. eventually we'll get beyond visual line of sight rule, over people rule. these are not easy by any stretch. putting them together we can integrate drones safely into the air space and our goal also is when this pilot program rolls up, it's not -- we're not going to tell the nine participants thank you very much, go home. the idea is to allow those that wish to become and stay and operationallize their programs, our goal is to help them do that. >> again if i may add the to the administrator's comments from the department of transportation perspective with the ipp allows
insofar as it's possible for regulatory agency to become a cutting-edge regulator this allows us to be on the cutting-edge of integrating drones safely into our manned air space. other countries are experimenting as we are but what they are doing is mostly on catch as catch can. we're trying to develop the system adequately so we can have the regulations in place based on these pilot programs that will allow us to give, for example for certifications. whatever lessons we learned can be applied nationally. >> talk about the role of local and state government and interface there and how that will operate. >> so, that wasn't in the presidential directive, something we wanted the ipp, the nine different programs to examine. federalism versus preelmtion and it's a great question. what we don't want to foster are
hundreds of different regulatory frame works that the industry would eventually have to comply with. you know if i'm in this county i got to do this. at the same time we have to strike that balance to allow localities -- localities know their issues obviously better than federal government. we have to strike that balance, to your point, to allow municipalities, states, tribal organizations, the ability to make restrictions that don't challenge federalism, but are good for the community, good for the industry, but ultimately safe for all the participants and we're learning a lot from the pilot program in that regard. >> what about sharing of radar feeds? do you anticipate faa to share radar feeds at local and state levels? ? yes or no? >> no. >> i didn't hear the question. >> i'll take it for the record.
>> i'll get back the to you, sir. >> mr. chair. >> next we have carbonhall. five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chair. administrator elwell thank you for coming to your subcommittee today and giving us an update of this faa re-authorization act of 2018. building on some of the questions by my colleagues regarding colleges, college centers of excellence, section 631 of that measure authorized the new program known as community and technical college centers of excellence in small unmanned aircraft systems technology training. this section is intended to help establish an expanded role for community colleges in education and training in various applications of small drone
technology. in my district the college is a community college that is focused on innovation and has the interest in section 631 centers of excellence program. the college is located on a site of the former hancock college of aeronea aeroastronaut -- aeronautics which opened 90 years ago. section 631 provides colleges to train students in the latest technology of drone technology. there was a deadline for the faa to have established a process to designate community colleges, uas centers of excellence. could you update this subcommittee on the status of section 631 for the centers of excellence program and two, what
type of consultation has taken place with the department of education and labor to develop this program? >> thank you for that question. the discussion earlier with mr. gallagher, we are -- we have no issue with the intent, nor the deadline. the problem we ran into ultimately was that centers of excellence are not -- we have many of them, agreements with center of excellence agreements but they are not vehicles for grants. so i would love to see a lot more small colleges get help with providing uas training and so would something chou. that was one of the key conversations we had in our workforce summit around this time. i will commit to get back the to you, sir, on engagement we had
and the extent to which we have brought them into the discussion and if we need to expand that, that interagency discussion we'll certainly do that. the goal is to improve and increase and energize our secondary education in these fields and so i commit to work with you and the other agencies as necessary. >> to that end how could schools such as hancock college prepare for future consideration of this section's benefits? >> i think a desire to have c e steph curcur curricula is enough. we need to facilitate and not
provide hinderance that want to bring that into their curricula. one of the things we have at the faa is accorrectedation for aviation schools. we have four year and two year accreditation and trying to advertise to young people, you know what? education is expensive. can you go to a two year vocational technical school for aviation in the aviation world and come out with really good careers, really good professions, and i'm sure that as turn as industry grows there will be more opportunities in that area as well. >> thank you. as was discussed by some of my previous colleagues, i too have been contacted by a number of my constituents about airplane noise. and the faa re-authorization include several provisions to address this issue.
what is the estimated time frame for the faa to implement these mandates and how is the faa working with communities like mine to address these issues? >> sir, there's noise is a huge issue nationwide. and we are actively working all of the provisions in the bill. we have every intention of meeting all the requirements. since they are different, a number of different provisions and different requirements, different lengths ever implementation, i can assure you, sir, we're working all of them and we'll -- we have every intention of meeting the requirements of the bill. >> since i'm out of time if you could give me some timelines that would being a great. >> i'll get back to you on the timelines. >> mr. chair, i yield back. >> i just want to clarify the record. the last time united states conducted a full scale
evacuation was 1999 for the 777. and then boeing based their certification on the 787 through comparative analysis on that and i don't know whether it's required or not but airbus, you know, did that in europe and not understand our auspices. then finally in terms of recent incidents, a number of people died on an air flight plane who were unable to evacuate. we don't know all the circumstances since it took place in russia. mr. perry. >> thank you, chairman. directed to mr. elwell the provision i placed in the faa bill required the faa to update existing regulations to authorize the carriage of property by owners of uas for compensation for hire. in your testimony you state this work is ongoing and the faa is currently meeting the intent of the mandate through an exemption process. i am pleased to see the faa
grant the first certification this year but came only after a long process of seeking numerous exemptions from provisions that do not and cannot apply to uas. avoiding this unnecessary type of burdensome process was the intent of the mandate. the deadline to update these rules is october 5th of this year, nine days from now, but we have yet to he see any faa action on this mandate so it doesn't appear this deadline will be met. can you just provide us with a status update on the mandate and a new timeline for meeting it if you have one? >> yes, mr. perry, thank you for that question. the desire to have uas perform those certificated activities we share. we share the goal to get that, to get that done.
it's important to point out there is frustration how long this has taken. but i think what we need to understand is unlike a lot of other countries that are trying to integrate mentioned would require beyond the visual line of sight carriage. these are rule-making activities that have significant safety implications and we have to make sure that we do the rule making for those specific abilities, the ability of an unmanned aviation vehicle to fly over people or beyond visual line of sight, these are very complex.
in both of those capabilities which would eventually be needed for commercial activity rely upon remote i.d. which we've talked about is going to take a little while. so, i absolutely share your desire to see this happen. i think we're in a very, very dynamic time in aviation in this country between the attempts to integrate uas, the doubling of commercial space launches. there's so much going on. but it's not going to be done as quickly as many would like, me included. >> we get it, i'm sure, and we know it's complicated. at the same time, also deadlines, suspenses, requirements motivate agencies, individuals, you name it, to get to a result, right? i mean, the federal government isn't immune to producing what
is asked of it. its bosses and my bosses, the taxpayers and constituents demand it. they don't want to hear -- they understand that sometimes things don't go as we wish they would, as we hoped they could or what have you, but it doesn't sound like you have any idea -- i hate to say it that way but if you do, this was the timeline that we had so i think it's fair to say that we're not going to meet it. six months, 100 years, what are we looking at? >> the only real suspense in putting new type of activity into the air space, the only deadline the faa really has at the end of the day is safety. i agree with you, placing a
deadline out there does motivate people but at the end of the day, if it can't be effectuated, if it can't be done and signed off on safely, it's going to be extended. for that reason, i always hesitate in these questions what's the timeline to do x or y -- >> i'm not going to pin you down to a day or something but can you give us some idea if this is years, if this is months? you try and meet a deadline, you find out what's in your way and then you figure out what's it going to take to get through these six barriers or three things or whatever. you make a new timeline. >> yiecan you get back to representative perry with the timeline? can you do that? >> yes. >> recognize representative stanton from arizona for five minutes. >> mr. elwell, one of the
purposes of the congress is to put the appropriate things into the law and then to ask about the timelines for implementation. that's one of the key roles of the people up here on this dais. i appreciate the nature of your concerns about it but that's what we do for the people that we represent. the faa reauthorization act includes several important changes related to the contract tower program including section 152 authorizing the faa to make grants to this airports from the small airport fund, to construct or improve their air traffic control towers. in arizona, phoenix makes a gateway airport as one of the fastest growing regional airports and the busiest air traffic control tower in the country. in the last five years annual operations have increased 80% and commercial activity continues to grow by double digits. existing tower was construct in 1970 by the air force, not intended for commercial use. a new air traffic control tower
is krit kalg for this airport and with 90% of the design completed for a new tower, federal funding for its construction must be a priority. what is the status of the faa implementation of section 152? >> we're meeting all the requirements on contract towers and we don't see any problem with it. we're going to meet them all. with respect to williams gateway, personal connection there. it's where i learned to fly, williams air force base, and then it came full circle in one of the first meetings i had in this capacity was the mayor of mesa telling me we need a new tower but we're only eligible for 2 million towards it and i'm really glad to see that we fixed that and that you're going to get a new tower. it is the busiest contract tower in the country and we just gave $1.3 million for the design study. it's going to be a 20-some-odd million project but it will be funded. >> we're nostalgic for the name
williams gateway. it's now mesa phoenix airport. thanks for your service. in april the faa hosted a series of workshops in the phoenix area to hear from residents about flight noise. those workshops are part of the 2017 lawsuit settlement over noise in the area, a lawsuit filed by the city of phoenix when i was mayor. i appreciate the faa holding these workshops. going forward it's important for the faa to work closely with the impacted communities to incorporate what was learned at these workshops and to make adjustments necessary to lessen noise impacts from the eastbound flight paths. what are the faa's next steps in this process, particularly as additional engagement with the impaired communities, scottsdale, fountain hills, and what's the expected timeline? >> sir, it's a two-step process as you're aware. we finished step one looking at departure route changes based on the community engagement. we have now completed the engagement phase of step two in looking at those
recommendations. as you know, there's no commitment to make changes after consultation in step two but anything we can do we're going to do. i'd have to get back to you on the timeline of that. i'm sure that the folks that are having those meetings have a deadline for when they're going to get back. >> we'll follow up. i appreciate that. let's talk staffing shortages in the faa and the impact it's having on regulatory functions. these staffing shortages are causing delays and improvement of environmental reviews. i and members of congress are concerned that these delays will have a ripple effect in delaying important construction projects. what steps is the faa taking to address current staffing needs, particularly on the regulatory side, to ensure timely environmental reviews? >> sir, i'll have to get back to you on that. to get any specifics on staffing shortages for environmental reviews, i'll get back to you.
i know that they, depending on whether it's a cat x or an ea or an eis, they can be lengthy and obviously the size of the examination can have a big impact but unless -- >> that's fair. we'll follow up and i appreciate you taking the time to get back to me on that issue. i want to turn to flagstaff's airport in northern, arizona. flagstaff averages more than 100 inches of snow annually. its airport is classified as a very large airport, meaning at least a million feet of paved runway that must be cleared in snow events. they have applied for a discretion grant to construct a multi-use building. the airport's current storage facility is at full capacity, including no additional room for snow equipment that the airport purchased last year. the proposed multi-use building will provide much needed storage to protect the airport's extensive equipment. i want you to know that i
support that request and look forwarded to working with you and i want you to keep me updated on the status of that project. >> we'll keep you updated. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman and i want to note for the record that we get a lot more snow than what you're talking about. >> that's noted. >> thank you. >> thank you for testifying today and, mr. elwell, i want to talk to you about something i presume you're familiar with and that's the unmanned aircraft system facilities and testing programs we have in central new york in my district and adjacent. the new air complex which is a former griffiths air base, there's a testing corridor to syracuse that's well established, has a tremendous amount of state support, local support, municipal support. it's also partly included as a tribal reservation, indian reservation, and there's a lot
of testing and research going on already which we're quite proud of. there's been two times where we've submitted funding requests or test pilot requests to the faa and given our very mature program, it was shocking to see that both times despite having very, very high rankings, neither time were we chosen as test sites. in fact, some were clearly inferior and were chosen over us and that is, to say the least, concerning to us. now here we are again. in june the integration office issued a broad agency announcement calling for development proposals from participating test sites. we submitted a proposal. we being the griffiths air complex, submitted a proposal and we're waiting on the status. it was supposed to be reported this month and i'd like to know what the -- any updates on when
we're going to find out about that. >> thank you. could you repeat what the program you're applying for is? >> it's the uas integration office issued a broad agency announcement calling for development proposals for participating uas test sites. we submitted a proposal and i say we because we're a team, all of us together on all levels of government, and it's been very frustrating with the selection processes in the past for support of these things. so i'm asking now, i know we're waiting for a decision-making process which we're suspected to get this month, and that's what we were told. we haven't heard anything so we're asking from you if you can give us any understand on that. >> i'll get you an update on that. i'm not familiar with that particular application and proposal but i'll certainly look into it and get back to you on that. >> are you familiar at all with
the new air griffiths test site? >> i am. >> what do you know about it? >> i know -- i believe at least a year or so ago, hoot gibson was running part of the operations there and that's a colleague and a friend who i worked with at the faa. i know that they -- i'm familiar with the corridor. i'm familiar with testing and the activities that they're doing there. >> are you familiar with the application they put in a year or two ago for the integrated pilot program to be selected as one of the sites and we've been by far the most well funded site, all had excellent ratings and we didn't get it. are you familiar with that process? >> sir, i know that -- i remember the process but i don't remember all of the individual applicants. >> are you familiar with the second application that the griffiths made of the utm pilot program which we were already working on there which was
already well established and again, we had superior marks on everything and we didn't get that? are you familiar with that process? >> again, i'm familiar with the utm program but i can't say that i'm familiar with the details of that application. >> i would ask for a quick response to my first question. that was when we're waiting to hear on this third application we've made and i'd like to get that quickly. this uas testing is very important for the future of our country. i also sit on homeland security and on homeland security it's clear that the safety component and the anti-terrorism component of what they're doing at griffiths rome is extremely important to the future of this industry and it seems like some of the programs that faa has rolled out, the testing programs, the pilot programs, have been influenced by things other than just getting the best possible sites to get the money. i would ask that you take a look at that and i ask that faa take a look at that.
lord knows they've heard from me, but it is concerning that on such an important and vital program that extra train yus things seem to be influencing who gets test pilots, priority in funding and testing. we have the best money base, one of the best supported test sites in all the country and we've been supported greatly by industry and i ask that you take a little more serious movement forward. thank you and i yield back. >> we have members lynch and garcia. on the republican side, stauber, massey and fitzpatrick. i want to ask mr. stauber if he wants to get in on the who has the most show in the world contest taking place on the committee. >> mr. chair, i was thinking the same thing but i'll yield back. >> we'll go with representative lynch from massachusetts for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and the ranking member for this hearing and thank you to the full committee.
i want to take a moment to recognize and acknowledge ms. nadia miller from my state of massachusetts. by all accounts her daughter was a bright and remarkable young woman. she was tragically killed in the ethiopian 737 max air disaster. she's here with other members of victims' families and we are indeed grateful for their willingness to come forward and to hold people accountable in memory of their loved ones. mr. elwell, so i have to take some exception to your description of the faa's willingness to engage with the community, local communities. you know where this is going, right? in your response to ms. craig and ms. davids, you talked about the way faa goes out and meets with local communities that are affected. i have to tell you, i've been here 18 years. i've been looking for meetings probably for the last 12.
we've had one community meeting in my area, logan airport in milton. got 700 people there. there was a celtics game that night and we still got 700 people there. my phone blew up when you were saying how good the faa is with community engagement. i know people in south boston are throwing stuff at their tvs right now because of your statement so that is totally false, totally false, and we need to do better. i'm not going to go further than that but it's deplorable, your outreach. the only reason we had the one meeting that we had, i put a floor amendment on it to pull $25 million from the last faa authorization because you weren't doing outreach. mr. shuster who is the republican chair agreed with me and then we had a meeting with the dot secretary, myself and mr. shuster. for $25 million, me withdrawing my amendment to remove $25
million from the faa budget, they gave me a meeting. and i'll do it again if that's what it takes, but it shouldn't. it shouldn't. by the way, there's some good news. there's some good news from the faa. look, i was one of the people that sponsored this health study because you're putting thousands and thousands of planes over the same houses in milton, massachusetts and south boston and dorchester and i think it's impacting the health of my constituents. so we're going to do a study. we could do a meeting, a public meeting, and the fda could come in and talk about their work with the boston university school of public health. dr. levy is running that. that's good news. you can talk about the fact that the faa has funded -- you didn't say this but the faa has funded the emissions study that we asked for for pollution over these homes, and also the noise study. you've done that as well. that's good news. you could come into my district and talk to my constituents and
explain about the good things you're trying to do but that's not -- that's not the history we've had with you. it's like pulling teeth to get the faa to come in and talk to people. i have to describe the attitude of the boston office of the faa as they treat us with contempt. they really do. they really do. so people are upset. you've got some good news to tell of the things you're trying to do. you just need to come in and tell them. they yell at me. they'll probably -- the folks are pretty mad about what's going on. you get thousands and thousands of flights over the same homes every single day and that gets people upset. you've got a study in here to talk about dispersal. let's talk about that. we need to do better. also, on behalf of my colleague, ms. eleanor holmes norton who sits beside me and is also my co-chair of the quiet skies
caucus, we've been trying to get the new administrator for the faa in to meet with the quiet skies caucus for a while now. we sent a letter on august 5th and we have not heard back so we would really appreciate if they would just attend with us and talk about these issues. i think that's all i've got, mr. chairman. but we really got to do much better. and i think i speak on behalf of my other colleagues that represent metro areas that have airports in them that we really got to do a much better job with community communication between us and the faa, okay? thank you, i yield back. >> thank you, mr. lynch. recognize representative stauber for five minutes. >> thank you very much, mr. chair. i appreciate you holding this meeting. i want to give you a scenario and i think i could be pretty detailed on it to make my point. let's say a husband and wife four kids, one with special needs, let's say it's down
syndro syndrome. the child is severe and profound, walks very slow, loveable kid, and that family decides to leave duluth, minnesota say to come to washington d.c. for example. and the special needs child in that family walks slow, he's being pushed down the aisle, and the plane is delayed. the family has the connection in minneapolis to come to d.c. the plane's delayed and the family were to ask the flight attendant can you help, we have a special needs child. we are delayed now, is there some wheelchair accessible folks that can meet that family to get them to make their flight to d.c. keep in mind this child walks slow. he walks at his pace.
and the answer is we're not sure. the family gets off the plane. they've got about 17 minutes to get down to a gate that's in the different part of the airport, and they make their flight barely. mom and dad are stressed. the other kids are frustrated. and so is the child. can you imagine? i just gave you a scenario. do you know who that family is? that's my family. the new reauthorization act requires the assistance of individuals with special needs to have the best practices. i would say, mrplease as you pu this forward, talk to the special needs community and those people with disabilities. they know the best in their families. with that being said, as the gentleman spoke earlier, faa is
doing some great things. i fly it every week. i see the successes. but please take that seriously when there's suggestions because the stress that my family was put under to make the inauguration of me, the swearing in, was critically important and it was very stressful during that period of time. when we couldn't get that assistance we needed. and i'm not blaming anybody. i'm telling you the experience from a member of congress on this subcommittee. i'm so grateful to be here to share this with you because i think personal stories matter. i trust that you will take not only my concern but the others' concern as you put in best practices for our special needs and disabled community. with that i want to quickly ask, what is -- what are we doing -- are you seeing some good suggestions coming forward to
make it easier, less stressful, and to make it -- the special needs population where they're treated fairly and equally, can you give me some ideas of where you're at right now? >> thank you for the question, congressman, for your obvious passion in the issue and for your work and the committee's work of putting these provisions into the faa reauthorization both for wheelchair access and for trained service for the people who are required to take wheelchairs. like you, we take these requirements seriously. with that i want to turn this over to assistant general council, blaine worky, who's our aviation consumer advocate and has been working with advocates on this issue. >> thank you for that question. i am very sorry to hear about what happened to your family or any family that experiences that kind of difficulty in obtaining access when they travel. that's simply not acceptable. we enforce the air carrier access act which prohibits
discrimination against air travelers with disability. we investigate every disability complaint that we received, and we send a response to the complainant to let them know how their complaint has been resolved. we also work very closely with the -- >> i just have 30 seconds. what i'm asking is do you have anything today on some best practices that you're implementing with the information that you have? i only have 20 seconds. >> sure, if you only have 20 seconds i will say take a look at our website. we do have best practices available on our website on air consumer.dot.gov. there's information on disability access. we're also going to be working on some of these issues with the air carrier access advisory committee. >> i look forward to the results and thank you, mr. chair, for bringing up the special needs population in your opening statement. >> very welcome. now turn to mr. garcia for five minutes. >> thank you, chairman and
ranking member as well. while i was not a member of the congress when the 115th congress passed the long-term faa reauthorization, i have followed its implementation. mr. elwell, mr. szabat, i understand that some of the 400 mandates in the faa had short implementation timelines. having said that, i'm really concerned about the time it's taken to advance several safety provisions that i personally think ought to be advanced more quickly. i will just leave it at that. a question for mr. elwell. before i get into the 2018 faa bill, i do want to ask you directly like i did earlier this year of safety workers testifying before this committee. in 2012 and 2016, twice now, congress directed the faa to address safety gaps between
domestic aircraft air stations and foreign repair stations. the faa is now more than seven years overdue to create an enforceable rule to raise the standards for foreign repair stations regarding security, background checks and alcohol testing. when will the faa implement this rule? >> mr. garcia, thank you for that question. obviously as testified before this committee on several occasions it's a very complex rule, requires navigation -- the law requires that we navigate the home country laws with regard to alcohol testing. but obviously also the beginning of this rule-making and the law that was first passed predates me and so if you would permit, i'd ask our expert. >> briefly, please.
>> yes. >> so, we did actually publish an advanced notice of proposed rule making in 2014. we were seeking comments on how we would implement the provision because of the complexity of working with the various international partners. we were able to get some information on cost benefit analysis as well as the systems that are in place in the foreign locations where we have repair stations that are certified. i think we've drafted an mprm. it is in coordination. it's not easy to draft a rule of general applicability with the various international frameworks that are existing related to drug and alcohol testing. it is a rule that we have drafted. we hope to move it through the executive coordination so that we can publish that notice for comment so that we can gather some more information so we can further the implementation. however, in the mean tiltime we
made improvements to address the risk. under part 145 certification we actually established an mou with faa and tsa so we can address the security aspects of those people. we can look at the security application based on background checks. also as a 121 operator, they have the responsibility to have a safety management system. any part of their system which could include repair station certifications they would be utilizing through contractual benefits, they would be sure to assert richsks and mitigate tha risks. >> thank you. my time will learn out if i let you continue. on the topic of safety, in the 2018 bill the questions of minimum seat size, distance between rows, safety and evacuation times has been addressed by chairman dephafaz . i thank him for that.
the third question, mr. elwell, after leaving them out in the 2012 bill, the 2018 faa bill instructed the department of transportation to implement a ten-hour rest period for flight attendants. mind you, these flight attendants can often work up to 16-hour shifts and the rest period doesn't take into account deplaning. the dot missed the statutory deadline to implement the rule by november 4 of 2018 and did not even begin a formal process until february of this year. i understand you may be starting action now. what took so long, and why did dot feel the need to do a full comment period when the law this body passed gave no discretion to augment how the regulations should be written? >> thank you for that question. as we talk aboed about this ear, the law was clear.
however, it did not absolve us of the responsibility to due notice and comment and for a rule that does not impose directly on the prayeoperators, has no choice but to go through rule making and benefit cost analysis which is the biggest reason why it's taken so long. but as we mentioned earlier, sir, the fatigue risk management plans are being submitted at a good clip by the 48 different carriers that have flight attendants and that is oh meets the need while we go through this rule making period. >> thank you, i yield back. >> before we go to mr. massey and mr. fitzpatrick, those are the only two members i have left barring any other members who come, i do plan to take a five-minute break to reset the panelists. however, if folks on the second panel want to take an
opportunity now for a comfort break, the timing is about right so if folks want to think about that, but we will be taking a five-minute break between panelists. with that i'll turn to mr. massey. >> so i'm the only thing standing in between them and their break? >> you can handle the pressure, tom. >> all right. maybe i'll get quick answers. mr. elwell, i'm glad to see a pilot in your position, a commercial pilot. i'm sure that's helpful to the taxpayers and to all of us to have your view of things. i want to focus on the data communications portion of next gen and the implementation of that, specifically the controller pilot data link. can you talk about the benefits of that, projects benefits and what some of the benefits are we've seen. >> sir, thanks for that question. cpdlc, computer pilot data link,
actually was -- the test base was miami in the 757 when i was flying the 757 for american so i'm proud to be -- >> i thought you might have some relevant experience. >> i'm proud to be one of the first pilots to tear off that strip of paper from the controll controller saying to climb to 16,000. so, but i don't mean to be light about that. the data com as it's called now has huge benefits, especially we implemented it at over 50 towers on the surface because instead of sitting there for 20 minutes waiting to get a word in edgewise at a very, very busy airport, you just get a display of what your clearance is, you push a button, accept it. it vastly eliminates readback and transcription errors and of course on efficiency and time not having the chatter on the radio cleans up the radio,
situational awareness is enhanced. i could go on for a long time about the value of it. i know where you're going if you want me to help on cbg. >> that's exactly where i'm going. fuel savings and safety are a benefit to that system but what i'm told by people who like the system, they say it's a bright spot actually in the next gen implementation that there are some less bright spots and some delays here and there but this is one example where it's been helpful. i'm told at the cbg airport -- i'll open it up and let you tell me that this is true -- that they have already made the capital investment to implement this and that most of the planes that land and take off there have made that capital investment on their own and just for your information which i'm sure you're probably already aware of, the cbg airport cargo has doubled there in the past five years.
amazon located their hub there. dhl moved their hub there. passenger flights originating there have doubled in the last five years. what they're wondering is when can they turn that on because it's -- and i'll open it to you. >> sir, we're well aware of that and cbg has had exciting growth and they importantly have the capacity for that growth so it's a good thing to see. one of the criteria for doing and putting data com into an airport is to assess the equipage rate by all operators because if you don't have the equipage critical mass then turning it on doesn't make much sense. so we're in the process of looking at that and once we have the capabilities in the tower and we have the equipage on the ground, i don't see a reason why we wouldn't turn it on. so we'll get back to you.
if there is something that either cbg can help us to get there, we'll let you know. i agree, it's the right thing to do and in every place we can do it we're trying to do it. >> obviously the air traffic controllers would need some training on it but the capital investment is just sitting there unused. that's the capital investment that the taxpayer or the fee payers at the airports have made, and then entire fleets there have this technology already in their planes. they were told you make this investment, then faa will uphold its side of the deal and you'll reap these benefits. so they've made those investments. the faa has made those investments. it's -- i mean, the volume there i think easily justifies it now. maybe it didn't five years ago when the plan was put forward. i'm glad there's 62 airports that have it. please get back to me and let me know when you think we can get that at cbg. we're a little bit -- i'm a
little bit concerned that the focus has already moved on to phase two which is the en route system but that's having a little rockier rollout. why don't we go ahead and get some of the benefits of the system we know works at other airports. thank you very much for your time and thank you for being aware of that situation. >> thank you, representative massey. recognize representative fitzpatrick for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. elwell, the question that i have for you pertains to an issue myself, my democratic colleague, josh scottheimer and many of my democrat and republican colleagues in the house and senate care deeply about the issue of secondary barriers. owen sarseeny is a widow of a constituent of mine which is the pilot that flew into the world trade center at 9:03 that morning. last year congress passed the
faa reauthorization bill including section 336, named the aviation safety act of 2018 which mandated secondary barriers in the cockpit of all new aircraft. the mission is not complete until we get retrofitting. we will not stop until we get secondary barriers in every aircraft that carries passengers. it is one of the few if not the only 9/11 commission report yet to be implemented 18 years after 9/11. the deadline is coming up for the implementation of secondary barriers and where does the process stand and what has caused the slow progress on implementation? >> thank you for that question. as someone who was intimately familiar -- 9/11 is a d.c.-based pilot with american airlines at the time and someone who knew the entire crew on flight 77, i can connect very strongly to
>> i'm sorry, the question is by the 18-month deadline? >> correct. >> so we won't have the rule-making done by that deadline. >> do you know when it will be done? >> no, sir. we will work as expeditiously as rule making allows. rule making once -- the issue of course is giving enough notice and comment time for each stage of the process which is what always elongates rule making and i can't -- i can get back to you on a more granular prediction but i don't have one. >> please do, sir. mr. chairman, i'd like to ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a letter written by
ms. sar seeny to this committee. >> no objection. >> thank you, mr. chairman. sir, one last question regarding drones. the united states is already falling behind the rest of the world when it comes to unmanned aircraft systems technology, and these regulatory delays are stifling innovation and investment. what are the reasons for the faa's delays in this area, and can you commit to the committee today that the faa will stick to its current schedule and complete these rule makings as expeditiously as possible? >> we're working on all of the rule makings in getting them done as quickly as we possibly can. but i will tell you, i don't ascribe to the statement that we're falling behind other countries. there's no other country that can compare to rule 107. there's no other country that gives the waivers that we've given or is doing the pilot programs that we have which integrate -- this is the most
important distinction we need to make, sir. other countries are primarily doing operations in the way its segregating uas from the rest of the air space. we're going in with the consumption that our uas will be integrated. it's a much more complex endeav endeavor, but i wouldn't characterize it as us falling behind. we're tackling larger issues in the most complex -- largest and most complex air space in the world. >> my time has expired. i yield back. >> thank you. recognize representative norton for five minutes. >> thank you very much. i'm sorry i couldn't be here for the entire hearing. i'm pleased i could be here for part of it. i do want to ask a question that i think is probably more relevant to my colleagues than to me. i may be the only of my colleagues who doesn't have to
get on an airplane every week. i just go nine blocks to capitol hill where i live. but i read recently something that troubled me a great deal. there were incidents where the planes came down safely. i was pleased to hear that. but passengers had to evacuate the airline. under the existing regulations, you're supposed to evacuate aircraft within 90 seconds. that's a very short period of time after a plane goes down. but what these incidents reported or what the press reported was that as people were trying to get out of the airline they were grabbing their carry-on baggages and obviously thereby slowing up evacuation
and that can be a life or death situation. you got your baggage but you don't survive. our authorization has asked the faa and of course you haven't had time to fully assess but it asks the faa to assess and report to congress on whether the consumptions and methods certifying compliance with evacuation requirements should be revised. mr. elwell, i'm bringing that up because already it seems to me that some revision should occur. i understand that the faa has initiated a rule-making committee to address this issue. i would be very interested given recent events to know the status of that mandate you apparently are working on now. >> thank you, ms. norton, for that question. we have created an emergency
evacuation aviation rule-making committee and its first meeting was -- first meeting is in a matter of weeks i believe. we're going to use the arc which of course as you know is a gathering of stakeholders and industry experts for their comment and their advice on how to go forward. we have been having an active conversation with this committee, with our stakeholders, and i can't remember if you were here when we talked about ground evacuation live tests. we have 12 days of testing that is scheduled for november. i believe it starts november 3 or 5 through december. we're going to have 12 days. we have 720 folks that are going to participate. we're going to gather over 3,000 data points. to your point -- and i agree and
agree with chairman dephase yoe, it's a priority of his as well. we need to look at evacuation and make sure that we have all the right assumptions to ensure that in these instances folks can get out of airplanes in emergencies. >> i wasn't hear and didn't hear that essentially this is going to be testing these assumptions, people getting on and off airplanes because my last question was going to be where did 90 seconds come from. one of the things i'll be interested in is whether or not anybody tested to see whether or not it's realistic to believe a full airplane can get off in 90 seconds and if that was just pulled out of the air or if it was based on testing. >> i can get back to you on the assumptions, the original assumptions of the 90 seconds. of course the assumptions of getting off an airplane have to do with flamability,
survivability, cabin filling with smoke or not. every incident is different of course. 90 seconds could be more than enough in some instances or nowhere near enough, or the accident or the incident could be such that you have all the time in the world, and other times it's just a matter of seconds. it's very complex which is why we formed the arc, which is why we have asked industry experts to give us advice on what we need to be looking at. we want to look at the right things and we want to do it expeditiously but we want to make sure we're answering the right questions. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. >> thank you. recognize mr. dephase yoe. >> thanks, i'll make this brief. i appreciate the amount of time that you've given, but you won't be here for the second panel and this goes back again to the secondary barriers and this is
in testimony from alpa. i was not aware of this, that you had already -- the faa has previously developed and published guidelines for secondary barriers using rtca, private not for profit corporation that contain design characteristics, minimum performance criteria, minimum certification guidance. it's do 329, 2011. that seems like maybe we don't need to go through a whole new evaluation process and we can rely on that and then move forward. >> is that a question, sir? >> well, i guess. are you aware of that? >> sir, we're very aware of 329. in fact, that's what has, since 2011 that is what the airlines are adhering to, the guidance
that when you did the example of the flight attendant standing behind the cart, that is part of do 329 guidance. >> alpa is saying that it has actual design characteristics, minimum performance criteria and installation and certification guidance for secondary barriers, not flight attendants behind food carts. i don't know, i'm not familiar with the document, but i would suggest that we'll get the document and we'll review it and i would suggest that perhaps there is more in there than menacing looking flight attendants behind food carts. thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, mr. elwell and mr. szabat and your team, teams, thank you very much for testifying today. you can tell by the breadth of the questions there's a lot of interest in the full implementation of the bill we passed last year, not partially, and you can also tell by the urgency of the questions the